Re: xdash name prefixes (was Re: Component Model Update)

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Dominic Cooney wrote: > I think for convenience registration probably should be carried around > with the component, because: > > 1. It is convenient for the author using the component. > > 2. If the component library reuses its own abstractions, it probably > exp

Re: xdash name prefixes (was Re: Component Model Update)

I think for convenience registration probably should be carried around with the component, because: 1. It is convenient for the author using the component. 2. If the component library reuses its own abstractions, it probably expects them to have a specific element name. Putting registration in th

Re: xdash name prefixes (was Re: Component Model Update)

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Adam Barth wrote: > Doesn't it seem more likely that the third-party will do the > registration in whatever script you include that implements the Like > button, or whatever? That's just a matter of convention, no? I don't think it's unreasonable to frame it as

Re: xdash name prefixes (was Re: Component Model Update)

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Roland Steiner wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Adam Barth wrote: >> >> On the other hand, it seems likely that some of these xdash names will >> come into multi-party use.  For example, the following use cases >> involve xdash names chosen by one party a

Re: Component Model Update

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Roland Steiner wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Dominic Cooney wrote: >> >> Here is a quick first cut: >> >> How about use cases like these: >> >> - Extension that wants to inspect and warn you >> when you are entering you password in an insecure form (

Re: xdash name prefixes (was Re: Component Model Update)

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Adam Barth wrote: > On the other hand, it seems likely that some of these xdash names will > come into multi-party use. For example, the following use cases > involve xdash names chosen by one party and then used by another: > > http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Compon

Re: Component Model Update

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Dominic Cooney wrote: > Here is a quick first cut: > > How about use cases like these: > > - Extension that wants to inspect and warn you > when you are entering you password in an insecure form (from abarth > earlier in the thread.) > - Password manager that wan

Re: xdash name prefixes (was Re: Component Model Update)

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Adam Barth wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Dominic Cooney wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Dimitri Glazkov >>> wrote: On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > T

[Component Model] Declarative syntax for shadow DOM subtrees, was Re: Component Model Update

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Olli Pettay wrote: >> One thing missing is some kind of declarative way to define >> shadow trees, similar to XBL1's . >> >> It would be rather strange if one needs to explicitly construct >> shadow tree aft

Re: Component Model Update

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Olli Pettay wrote: > One thing missing is some kind of declarative way to define > shadow trees, similar to XBL1's . > > It would be rather strange if one needs to explicitly construct > shadow tree after the element is created. I know we plan to add a declarative

Re: Component Model Update

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Olli Pettay wrote: > One thing missing is some kind of declarative way to define > shadow trees, similar to XBL1's . > > I think this omission is a big plus. XBL1 is mysterious. If a dev tool wants to add support for building Components from declarative markup, a

Re: Component Model Update

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Olli Pettay wrote: > On 08/23/2011 11:40 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: >> >> All, >> >> Over the last few weeks, a few folks and myself have been working on >> fleshing out the vision for the Component Model. Here's what we've >> done so far: >> >> * Created a general

Re: Component Model Update

On 08/23/2011 11:40 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: All, Over the last few weeks, a few folks and myself have been working on fleshing out the vision for the Component Model. Here's what we've done so far: * Created a general overview document for behavior attachment problem on the Web (http://wiki.

Re: Component Model Update

Here is a quick first cut: How about use cases like these: - Extension that wants to inspect and warn you when you are entering you password in an insecure form (from abarth earlier in the thread.) - Password manager that wants to find anything that looks like a login panel and decorate it/fill

Re: Component Model Update

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:03 PM, John J Barton wrote: > I'm still trying to digest this, but it seem pretty clear the 'confinement' > is the "clear scope" thing I was asking about on es-discuss.  According to > that discussion, this means needs to fit with the 'modules' thing on > ecmascript. That

Re: Component Model Update

I'm still trying to digest this, but it seem pretty clear the 'confinement' is the "clear scope" thing I was asking about on es-discuss. According to that discussion, this means needs to fit with the 'modules' thing on ecmascript. That seems to be where you are headed, but basing a new proposal on

Re: Component Model Update

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:23 PM, John J Barton wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Dimitri Glazkov > wrote: > >> >> > Independent of our different point of view on control, shadow DOM needs >> > debug APIs. So much the better if these are available to extensions. >> >> Let me see if I c

Re: Component Model Update

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > > Independent of our different point of view on control, shadow DOM needs > > debug APIs. So much the better if these are available to extensions. > > Let me see if I can capture this into a feature: user scripts may have > access to shado

Re: Component Model Update

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:50 PM, John J Barton wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Dominic Cooney wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Dimitri Glazkov >> wrote: >> > Yes, shadow DOM gives the author an extra lever to control visibility >> > and hackability of their code. It's

Re: xdash name prefixes (was Re: Component Model Update)

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Dominic Cooney wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Dimitri Glazkov >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Adam Barth wrote: This section

xdash name prefixes (was Re: Component Model Update)

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Dominic Cooney wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Dimitri Glazkov > wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Adam Barth wrote: >>> This section >>> says "When an unknown DOM element with an "x-"-

Re: Component Model Update

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Dominic Cooney wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Dimitri Glazkov > wrote: > > Yes, shadow DOM gives the author an extra lever to control visibility > > and hackability of their code. It's up to them to use this lever > > wisely. > Maybe I grew up on to m

Re: Component Model Update

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Adam Barth wrote: >> I feel somewhat like I'm walking into the middle of a movie, but I >> have a couple questions.  Please forgive me if my questions have >> already been answer in previous discussions. >

Re: Component Model Update

Hi Olli! On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 3:13 AM, Olli Pettay wrote: > On 08/23/2011 11:40 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: >> >> All, >> >> Over the last few weeks, a few folks and myself have been working on >> fleshing out the vision for the Component Model. Here's what we've >> done so far: >> >> * Created

Re: Component Model Update

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > I feel somewhat like I'm walking into the middle of a movie, but I > have a couple questions.  Please forgive me if my questions have > already been answer in previous discussions. Welcome to the show! > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Dimi

Re: Component Model Update

On 08/23/2011 11:40 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: All, Over the last few weeks, a few folks and myself have been working on fleshing out the vision for the Component Model. Here's what we've done so far: * Created a general overview document for behavior attachment problem on the Web (http://wiki.

Re: Component Model Update

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > I feel somewhat like I'm walking into the middle of a movie, but I > have a couple questions.  Please forgive me if my questions have > already been answer in previous discussions. > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Dimitri Glazkov > wrote:

Re: Component Model Update

I feel somewhat like I'm walking into the middle of a movie, but I have a couple questions. Please forgive me if my questions have already been answer in previous discussions. On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > All, > > Over the last few weeks, a few folks and myself have

Component Model Update

All, Over the last few weeks, a few folks and myself have been working on fleshing out the vision for the Component Model. Here's what we've done so far: * Created a general overview document for behavior attachment problem on the Web (http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Behavior_Attachment); * Wrote dow